Actors’ interaction in the ERP implementation literature

1

Actors’ interaction in the ERP implementation literature

Bambang Purwoko Kusumo Bintoro

School of Business and Management, Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia,

and Bakrie University, Jakarta, Indonesia, and

Togar Mangihut Simatupang, Utomo Sarjono Putro and Pri Hermawan

School of Business and Management, Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the existence of studies, by exploring the

current literatures, on interaction among actors in Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

implementation.

Design/methodology/approach – A new classification framework is offered, along with the two

dimensions of ERP implementation: determinants and outcomes, to provide four types of

research classes. Hundreds of articles were searched by using keywords from journal data bases.

The selected articles were grouped based on the new classification of ERP implementation,

followed by an in-depth analysis by using the Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcomes logic

and the system of systems methodologies (SOSM) framework.

Findings – The interactions among actors in ERP implementation have been overlooked,

although there is almost always disagreements, misperceptions, and conflicts. Managing the

interactions among actors is considered important because common failures in ERP

implementation are often caused by mismanaged interactions among the key actors.

Unfortunately, the existing research has so far shown a small effort to study how the actors‟

interactions are managed.

Research limitations/implications – One key limitation of this research is that the number of

actor-related articles is lesser than the factor-related articles. Further research should be

conducted to explain how to manage the interactions among the actors in each stage of ERP

implementation.

2

Practical implications – A guidance to prepare the entire organization prior to the ERP

implementation to seriously consider the typical conflict among actors on each stage of ERP

implementation and its causal factors and how to resolve them.

Social implications – The importance of understanding typical conflict among actors, its causal

factors, and how to resolve them can be extended to other projects or social phenomenon.

Originality/value – This proposed framework is new to the ERP literature and serves to identify

and expand further research on actors‟ interactions to improve the success of ERP

implementation. This is the first research to identify the interactions among actors in ERP

implementation by using a clearly structured methodological approach, which is conducted by

critically reviewing the ERP implementation literature.

Keywords Critical review, ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), Actor‟s interaction, ERP

implementation, Key success factor, Key success actor

Paper type Literature review

Business Process Management Journal - Vol. 21 No. 2, 2015 - pp. 222-249

© Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1463-7154

DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-11-2013-0142

1. Introduction

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is a system that automates and integrates separate,

autonomous business functions and silo-centric infrastructures across an enterprise which, is

intended to improve operational efficiency and provide real-time information to the top

management for strategic decision making. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system is

composed of several modules, such as human resources, sales, finance, and production,

which can be customized up to a certain limit to the specific needs of an organization. In

reality, implementation of ERP is not exclusively for customizing a business process

embedded within an organizational system so that the business process suits to the

organization. It is proved to be a challenging task because of both critical socio-technical and

technical factors found during ERP implementation (Shah et al., 2011).

3

ERP implementation can be regarded as a journey which consists of five different stages

or phases. They are design, implementation, stabilization, continuous improvement, and

transformation (Ross and Vitale, 2000). Françoise, Bourgault and Pellerin (2009) argued that

the scope of an ERP project is huge and involves as many uncertainties as there are benefits

expected from this system. Managing the changes in a large ERP system is exceptionally

complex, which requires a wide variety of knowledge (business, technology, human,

organization), skills (managerial, political, project management), and the ability to handle

practical situations (Kraemmergaard and Rose, 2002).

Since their introduction in the early 1990s, ERP systems and their complicated

implementations have given rise to numerous publications. Vast amount of literature

regarding the critical success factors (CSFs) of ERP implementation has been written.

Holland and Light (1999) developed a framework that grouped the CSFs of ERP

implementation process into strategic and tactical factors. Research conducted by Akkermans

and Helden (2002) confirmed the top ten of the list of CSFs that could adequately explain

both the successful and failed ERP implementation projects being studied. Muscatello (2002)

conducted an exploratory study on ERP implementation and concluded that there were 26

factors that contributed to the likelihood of successfulERP implementation. Finney and

Corbett (2007) published a compilation about the analysis of CSFs of ERP implementation,

which was based on the content and data bases of the 70 prominent MIS journals,which

discussed 9 strategic CSFs and 17 tactical CSFs. Françoise et al. (2009) proposed 13 ACSFs

(actions critical success factors) derived from a literature review on critical factors in

implementing ERP systems. Moohebat, Jazi and Asemi (2011) conducted a literature review

on the evaluation of ERP implementation using five CSFs.

On the other hand, failed ERP implementation still happens, as annually announced by

International Data Group (IDG), a leading media technology, event-organizing, and research

company in the world. These contradictive conditions ledto an interesting question as to why

the failure rate remains high if the CSFs had already been identified in prior studies.

According to Žabjek, Kovacic and Štemberger (2009), Snider, Silveira and Balakhrisnan

(2009) and, Françoise et al. (2009), the high failure rate was still one of the motivating

factors and a lively topic to study the CSFs of ERP implementation. Esteves (2004) argued

4

that although CSFs were quite well studied, except for their operationalization, a need to

understand the different actors, such as steering committee, project members, consultants,

vendors in an ERP implementation project was still needed. Moreover, Finney and Corbett

(2007) on their literature review also concluded that the most significant finding was the lack

of research that focused on the identification of CSFs from the perspectives of key actors.

This is in-line with the statement of Denyer and Tranfield (2009) that it was not enough only

to know the importance of user interaction or involvement without ascertaining why or how,

in what form, and in what circumstances the interaction among actors occurs.

Therefore, this paper attempts to find the studies that are focused on actor interaction

analysis as well as on how the interaction is managed in each stage of ERP implementation.

If such studies do not exist, then this paper will propose a further study that is focused on the

exploration of the types of conflicts arising in the interaction among actors in each stage of

ERP implementation, their causal factors, and the best methods to resolve the conflicts.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, the background and formulation of the

problem is introduced. Section 2 contains a literature review of the previously related studies

on the actor interaction analysis. Section 3 explains the research method. Section 4 contains

the steps to conduct the article analysis. Section 5 discusses the findings of the article

analysis. Finally, Section 6 concludes this paper and provides inputs for further research.

2. Literature review

Through successful implementation of ERP systems, organizations can reap a lot of

benefits, but a project can also be disastrous for the organizations that fail to manage the

implementation process. The articles focused on stakeholders (or users) of ERP

implementation are still limited, not as many as the articles on critical factors of ERP

implementation. Moreover, the number of articles on stakeholder acceptance is more than

user resistance, possibly due to its positivist nature. This is similar with the articles on critical

factors of ERP implementation, where the number of articles on success factors is more than

the articles on failure factors.

Klaus and Blanton (2010) stated that stakeholder‟s resistance, which is defined as “the

behavioral expression of a stakeholder‟s opposition to a system implementation during the

5

implementation”, was an important issue in the implementation of enterprise systems (ES).

According to Warne (1997), although stakeholder‟s resistance was generally viewed as a

negative characteristic of implementation, it wasstill beneficial since it became a problem

that had to be addressed. A conflict is always related to resistance, and the resistance itself is

aformof conflict avoidance. Warne (1997) stated that the types of conflict in IS project,

including in ERP, were grouped into developer-developer conflict, developer-user conflict

and user-user conflict and the extent to which each conflict type took, e.g., major, significant,

or minor.

There were no previously related studies which explained what are the cause of resistance

and commitment of the stakeholders, what type of conflicts exist, how the conflicts arose

from the interaction amongst actors and resolved in each stage of ERP implementationevery

stage of ERP implementation project (initiation/planning, development and deployment/go

live).

3. Research method

The primary purpose of this research is to find out the actor‟s interaction, including how

to manage the interaction among them, which contribute to the outcome of ERP

implementation. In the first stage, the research begins by characterizing ERP implementation

based on two key dimensions: the outcomes and determinants. The outcomes of ERP

implementation are related to success and failure ERP adoption. The determinants are related

to factors and actors of ERP implementation. The two dimensions are able to capture the

existing literature status on both the actors and factors that determine the results of ERP

implementation.

3.1. Defining the outcomes (success or failure) of ERP implementation

Outcome is defined as the result of an experiment or any other situation involving

uncertainty. Uncertainty and risk are inherent in a project, and ERP implementation is no

exception. However, the definition of success and failure is not simple and clear cut.

According to Markus and Tanis (2000), the success (or failure) of enterprise systems is not a

monolithic concept, but multidimensional and relative. It is relative to the time at which it is

assessed and to the organization‟s unique goals for a system. To accommodate the success of

6

multidimensionality and relativity of enterprise systems, from adopting an organization‟s

perspective, Markus and Tanis (2000) defined a standard for an optimal success. The

standard referred to the best outcomes that the organization could achieve with enterprise

systems, given its business situation, which was measured against its project portfolio, early

operation, and metrics‟ longer-term business results. Fortune and Peters (2005) defined

success as “the system achieved what was intended of it; it was operational at the time and

cost that were planned; the project team and the users are pleased with the result and they

continue to be satisfied afterwards”.

Al-Mashari , Al-Mudimigh and Zairi (2003), in their taxonomy of critical factors of ERP

implementation, defined ERP success by correspondence success, e.g., IT matched the

planned objectives; process success, e.g., the project was completed in time and within the

budget; interaction success, e.g., the users‟ attitudes towards IT were positive; and

expectation success, e.g., the system matched users‟ expectations. In summary, an ERP

implementation project can be regarded as a successful one if the project can be finished on

time and within the budget; the users are satisfied because their expectations are met; the

systems are able to perform the functionalities as expected; and the business performance or

operational efficiency experiences an increase.

Yeo (2002) offered four types of IS failures: (1) correspondence failure is mainly because

the design objectives created at the first place do not correspond with the system evaluation;

(2) process failure is when the project runs overtime, when the project is over-budget, or

when there is no workable system at all; (3) interaction failure is when the system fails to

improve the business performance or the operation efficiency, the users are unsatisfied with

how the system works, or there are other problems faced by the users; and (4) expectation

failure is when the stakeholders‟ requirements, expectations, or values are not met due to the

inability of the system. Aloini, Dulmin and Minnino (2007) in their study on the risk

management of ERP implementation classified the failure of an ERP project as the mirror of

the ERP success factors that belong to the category of Al-Mashari et al. (2003). Summarizing

those statements, failure can be defined as a condition when an ERP implementation project

cannot be finished on time, it experiences a budget overrun, the users are unsatisfied because

their expectations are not met, the systems cannot perform the expected functionalities, and

7

there is no increase in business performance or in operational efficiency.

3.2. Determinants (factors and actors) of ERP implementation

Determinants are the causal elements or factors that have the power or quality for

deciding or influencing the condition of, in this case, successful or failed ERP

implementation. Macy and Willer (2002) reviewed an approach that models interactions

among adaptive agents (actors) as an alternative to model interactions among variables

(factors). Thus, besides factors which are elements or causes that actively contribute to a

condition, an accomplishment, or a result; it is also important to consider the actors or

persons who actively involve or participate in producing a result or a certain condition. In

addition, it is Eisenhardt and Zbaraki (1992, p. 18), in Esteves (2004), who mentioned the

needs to consider the actors in CSF method for the first time before Markus and Tanis

(2000)defined the existence of stakeholders in each stage of ERP implementation.

The original concept of success factors can be traced back to 1961, where Daniel (1961)

first discussed “success factors” in management literature. In 1972, Anthony, Dearden

andVancil (1972) went a step further by emphasizing the need to tailor critical success

factors (CSF) to both a company‟s particular strategic objectives and its particular managers.

Another CSF definition proposed by Hofer and Schendel (1978) as “the variables which

management can influence through its decisions that can significantly affect the overall

competitive positions of the various firms in an industry”.Combining the perspective of both

Daniel (1961) and Anthony et al. (1972), Rockart (1979) defined CSF as the few key areas

where „things must go right‟ for the business to flourish. Later on, Rockart and Bullen (1981)

broadens their view towards the word “critical success factors,” where they begun to take

place with other basic terms concerned with the management of an organization.Furthermore,

Boynton and Zmud (1984) defined CSFs as the vital constructs that must go well to ensure

success for manager or organization. Saraph, Benson and Schroeder (1989) defined the CSFs

as “the critical areas of managerial planning and action that must be practiced in order to

achieve the effectiveness”. Another more recent definition was proposed by Caralli (2004),

where CSFs are defined in the context of an effort that must be undertaken with regards to

ensure that it is successful. Esteves (2004) argued that the difference between success criteria

and CSFswas an important distinction. However, Chuen (2010) stated that some CSFs, which

8

were identified in prior research, were critical aspects which should not be regarded as CSFs

because they were not sufficient conditions. Chuen (2010) proposed five CSFs, such as top

management support, effective project management, consultants support, perceived

usefulness, and self-efficacy. These 5 CSFs are in-line with Rockart‟s (1979) definition of

CSFs, in which it is regarded as the few key areas, and not as the long list of success factors

as presented in some previous studies. Recently, Neuert and Vorst (2014) stated that critical

success factors (CSF) are elements that are vital for a strategy to be successful.

Wong, Scarbrough, Chau and Davison (2005) on the other hand, examined and discussed

fourteen critical failure factors (CFFs) and suggested that the role of consultants, effective

project control and monitoring, and making use of business process reengineering matches

both the business processes and the ERP function, which were important in ERP

implementation. Thus, it can be defined that CSFs are the key or critical elements or causes

that actively contribute and have the power or quality of deciding or influencing the success

of ERP implementation. Subsequently, the CFFs were the key (critical) elements or the

causes that actively contribute to the failure of ERP implementation.

3.3. A new framework of ERP implementations articles

In order to conduct a holistic article analysis, a new framework is developed by

synthesizing the outcomes and determinants of ERP implementation that results in the

categorization of four types of combinations as follows: (i) CSFs (critical success factors) are

the articles which explain the key or critical elements or causes that actively contribute to and

have the power or quality of deciding or influencing the success of ERP implementation, (ii)

CFFs (critical failure factors) are the articles which clarify the key or critical elements or

causes that actively contribute to the failure of ERP implementation, (iii) CSAs (critical

success actors) are the articles which elaborate the participants or persons or key players who

actively take part in the success of ERP implementation, and (iv) CFAs (critical failure

actors), are the articles which discuss the participants or persons or key players who actively

involved in the failure of ERP implementation.

The next step is to select the articles on ERP implementation, which contained well-

known information systems, from journals, as the first round searching, by using ProQuest

and from Emerald Insight databases, as the second round one, by using the following seven

9

search keywords: ERP implementation, factors ERP implementation, critical success factors

ERP implementation, critical failure factors ERP implementation, actors ERP

implementation, critical success actors ERP implementation, and critical failure actors ERP

implementation. The selected articles were then classified into the Outcomes and

Determinants matrix.

Based on the new article classification framework, an in-depth analysis using CIMO-

logic (Denyer,Tranfield and van Aken, 2008) on ERP governance was conducted to confirm

the findings. The CIMO-logic is a combination of Problem-in-Context, Intervention,

Outcome Producing Generative Mechanisms, and Outcome.

Another analysis was conducted using the framework of System of Systems

Methodologies (SOSM)developed by Flood and Jackson (1991) based on the problems and

actors of ERP implementation. Finally, a conclusion is drawn upon the findings of the article

analysis, and further research directions are outlined based on the identified research gaps.

Below is the theoretical model of article analysis mentioned above.

Figure 1.Theoretical Model of Article Analysis

4. Findings

4.1. Articles selection results

The following are the first round results obtained by using the above mentioned search

keywords. The results from ProQuest are as follows. There are 5845 articles from kw1 =

keywords 1 "ERP implementation", 4756 articles from kw2 = keywords 2 "factors ERP

Article

selection

Article analysis

CIMO Logic on

ERPImplementation

SOSM

(Problems and

Participants Matrix)

ProQuest

database

Emerald

database

Findings

Actor‟s interaction

articles

Article

classification

Outcomes

and

Determinants

Matrix

10

implementation",2836 articles from kw3 = keywords 3 "critical success factors ERP

implementation",1944 articles from, kw4 = keywords 4 "critical failure factors ERP

implementation",1031 articles from kw5 = keywords 5 "actors ERP implementation",661

articles from kw6 = keywords 6 "critical success actors ERP implementation", and 488

articles from kw7 = keywords 7 "critical failure actors ERP implementation". The article

searching was limited to 200 articles because of the inconsistency of the results with the

keywords beyond 200 articles. There were articles which always appearinkw1, kw2, kw3,

and kw4 for factor and in kw5, kw6, and kw7 for actor.

The results obtained from Emerald Insight database by using the same search terms or

keywords are as follows. There were1130 articles from kw1 = keywords 1 "ERP

implementation", 1005 articles from kw2 = keywords 2 "factors ERP implementation",767

articles from kw3 = keywords 3 "critical success factors ERP implementation", 446 articles

from kw4 = keywords 4 "critical failure factors ERP implementation",250 articles from kw5

= keywords 5 "actors ERP implementation",180 articles from kw6 = keywords 6 "critical

success actors ERP implementation", and 116 articles from kw7 = keywords 7 "critical

failure actors ERP implementation". The article searching was also limited to 200 articles,

because of, once again, the inconsistency of the results with the keywords beyond 200

articles. Similar to the results obtained from ProQuest selection, there were articles which

always appear in kw1, kw2, kw3, and kw4 for factor and in kw5, kw6, and kw7 for actor in

Emerald Insight selection.

4.2. Articles selection analysis

By combining the results from the first and second screening, the final result consisted

of108 articles:99for factor articles and9for actor articles. 78 out of the 108 selected articles

were obtained from well known journals as presented in Table 1. Moreover, 81 out of the 108

selected articles were published in 2007 (6 articles), 2008 (14 articles), 2009 (19 articles),

2010 (18 articles), 2011 (12 articles), 2012 (4 articles), 2013 (7 articles) and 2014 (1 article).

According to Huang (2010), researchers paid more attention to human factor than technical

factors in ERP implementation because ERP software becomes more mature and needs less

attention on technical parts. His research found that more articles after 2003 put end-user‟s

training or involvement as a CSF. This is in-line with Kumar et al. (2003) statement that

11

implementation challenges relate more too behavioural and management issues than to

technical difficulties.

Table 1. Journals of the Selected Articles

Business Process Management Journal 20

Industrial Management and Data Systems 15

Journal of Enterprise Information Management 14

European Journal of Information Systems 7

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 6

Information Technology and People 4

European Journal of Operational Research 3

International Journal of Business and Management 3

International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems 3

International Journal of Operations and Production Management 3

The fact that there were articles which always appear in kw1, kw2, kw3, and kw4 for

factor and in kw5, kw6, and kw7 for actor from ProQuest as well as Emerald Insight

selection proved that there were two categories: factor articles and actor articles. The number

of actor articles was significantly smaller than the factor articles. This condition indicated

that the number of research on the actors of ERP implementation was still limited, while the

number of research on the factors of ERP implementation already reached a saturated level.

The classification of 108 articles into each cell was indicated from the title of the articles,

or if the title did not explicitly mention the word CSF, further indication was obtained from

either the abstract of the articles or within the reading articles. From 108 articles, 80 articles

were classified into the CSFs cell, 19 articles into the CFFs cell, 7 articles into the CSAs cell,

and 2 articles into the CFAs cell. The initial classification of the articles is presented in

Figure 2.

12

Figure 2.The Initial Classification of articles on ERP implementation

Although the initial classification has already been obtained, there were 80 articles on

CSF and 19 articles on CFF which could not provide the answers to the main factors

contributing to the root causes of both the successful and the failedERP implementation.

Similar condition happened to 7 articles on CSA and 2 articles on CFA, which were not able

to show the main actors who were involved in either the successful or failed ERP

implementation. Thus, another way to conduct a more in-depth analysis to those articles is

needed.

4.3. In-depth article analysis using CIMO logic

Denyer et al. (2008) stated that the publication of organization and management research

had grown exponentially, but their scientific basis was traditionally regarded as highly

fragmented. Pawson (2006) in Denyer et al. (2008) stated that realist synthesis could

accommodate research evidence from a range of study types because the realist‟s goal was to

understand how interventions or systems work in various types of contexts. Denyer et al.

(2008) introduced the design propositions which were based on the so-called „CIMO-logic‟,

involving a combination of a problematic Context. The design propositions suggested a

certain Intervention type to produce, through specified generative Mechanisms, the intended

Outcome(s). This is in accordance with Pawson (2006) in Denyer and Tranfield (2009), who

stated that a realist‟s approach required a reviewer to determine the context, mechanism, and

outcome configurations through comparing and contrasting interventions in different

contexts. Moreover, Denyer and Tranfield (2009) also stated that in social science fields,

ERP Implementation Outcomes

Success Failure

ERP implementation

determinants

Factors 80 articles 19 articles

Actors 7 articles 2 articles

13

such as organization and management studies, only knowing what worked was not enough.

Ascertaining why or how and in what circumstances a relation occurred was required.

This CIMO-logic is adopted into a simple contingent contextual framework, where the

context in which ERP implementation is required, can be identified in:

a. the globalization, which happens due to the growth of E-commerce in this borderless

world, since it requires the accuracy and assurance of the information presented in a

financial statement and the rapid delivery or response time of the goods that are ordered.

In this context, ERP plays an important role to support those requirements;

b. the structural changes of an organization, because the company that wishes to implement

an ERP system should reengineer its business reengineering process while the nature of

ERP package can only be customized up to a certain limit; and

c. the uncertainty (unpredictability) and risk, because the high investment to implement an

ERP system is required, but there is no guarantee for the project success, direct

improvement, and business performance.

In order to achieve the intended outcomes of ERP implementation while considering the

above-mentioned contextual factors, the mechanism, through which the intervention

produces the intended outcomes, has to be defined. Inspired by the governance in ERP

implementation system, which was proposed by Fitzgerald and Carol (2003), consisted of

organizational governance, project governance, and IT governance, the intended

interventions should consist of organizational related (an increase in business performance or

operational efficiency), project related (finished on time and within the budget), and IT

related (able to deliver the expected system of functionalities and to satisfy the users by

fulfilling their requirements). As previously mentioned, there are only two outcomes of ERP

implementation, i.e. the success and failure. While the four measures towards either the

successful or failed ERP implementation are project completion time, project expenditure,

user‟s expectations or performing system of functionalities, and impact to the business

performance or operational efficiency. The relationships among contextual factors,

interventions, and outcomes are presented in Figure 3.

14

Figure 3. Relationships among contextual factors, interventions, and outcomes

The derivation of mechanisms was made by relating the contextual factors, intended

interventions, and outcomes of ERP implementation. Connecting the accuracy and assurance

of the information from the globalization context with the successful ERP implementation as

the intended outcome requires an excellent data quality, data conversion, and data integrity

from the legacy systems which fall under the mechanism of standardize specification in the

project related intervention. Business reengineering, as a consequence of structural changes

of the organization context, requires an organizational related intervention using such

mechanisms as redesign business processes, commitment to change, top management

support, and interdepartmental cooperation. Uncertainty (unpredictability) and risk context,

which are inherent in every project, including in ERP implementation, will require a minimal

customization, realistic and adequate budget, and balanced team and best people under the

project related intervention.

Table 2 shows the summary of the relationshipsamong contextual factors, interventions,

and outcomes, while the details are presented in Tables 3 and 4.

Contextual factors Interventions Outcomes

Organizational

related

Project related

IT related

Project completion

time

Project expenditure

User expectation

Impact to business

performance

Globalization

Structural changes

Uncertainty and risk

15

Table 2. Article analysis using CIMO logic

CSF

(80 articles)

CFF

(19 articles)

CSA

(7 articles)

CFA

(2 articles)

CONTEXT

Globalization 4 3 0 0

Structural changes 4 6 1 0

Uncertainty and risk 12 13 0 0

INTERVENTIONS

Organizational related

Top management support 54 9 3 0

Commitment to change 45 10 2 2

Redesign business process 58 18 5 2

Interdepartmental cooperation 44 4 3 0

IT related

Adequate infrastucture 35 11 2 2

Qualified consultant 42 8 4 1

Partner relationship 31 8 2 0

Project related

Minimal customization 32 8 1 1

Realistic and adequate budget 18 10 2 0

Standardised specifications 38 15 5 2

Balanced team & best people 49 13 3 0

OUTCOMES

Project completion time 23 2 0 0

Project expenditure 20 1 0 0

User satisfaction 19 8 0 2

Impact to business performance 30 9 3 0

The results of the articles classificationusing CIMO logic in Table 2 are in line with the

design propositions offered by Denyer et al. (2008). The CIMO Analysis shows that the

dominant context is uncertainty and risk on both CSF and CFF articles, but there are no

16

dominant contexts on both CSA and CFA articles. The order of dominant mechanismsin CSF

articles are (1)organizational related intervention,(2) project related intervention and (3) IT

related intervention. While in CFF articles, the rank of dominant mechanisms are (1) project

related intervention, (2) organizational related and (3) IT related.Moreover, the rank of

dominant outcomes in CSF articles are(1) the impact to business performance, (2) project

completion time, (3) project expenditure and (4) the ability to fulfill user expectation. The

order of dominant outcomes in CFF articles are (1) the impact to business performance and

(2) the ability to fulfill user expectation. However, the dominant intervention and outcomes

in CSA and CFA articles cannot be determined because of the limited number of or very few

articles on CSA, and CFA.

The CFF articles seems to pay more attention on how to avoid the failed ERP

implementation, and this explains why CFF articles put uncertainty and risk as the dominant

context and project related as the dominant intervention. On the other hand, although CSF

articles also put on uncertainty and risk as the dominant context, but organizational related is

the first rank on the dominant intervention.In other words, CFF articles are focusing on the

tactical or technicalaspects, while CSF articles concentrate more on the strategic aspects. It is

also important to note that further investigation onall articles revealedthat user interaction

was implicitly discussed on the organizational related interventionunder the

interdepartmental cooperation, commitment to change and redesign business process

mechanisms. This supports the conclusion that articles on user interaction areunavailable.

4.4. Article analysisusing the SOSM framework

The use of CIMO logic for the in-depth article analysis mentioned in the previous section

still cannot show the actor interaction in each stage of ERP implementation. Therefore,

another in-depth analysis method is needed to explore the actor interaction and its situation.

This led to the decision of using Systems of Systems Methodologies (SOSM) framework,

which was introduced by Flood and Jackson (1991). SOSM was found useful to group

problem contexts according to two dimensions: systems (problems) and participants. Systems

(problems) dimension consists of simple and complex, while participants dimension consists

of unitary, pluralist, and coercive. The combination of the systems and the participants

dimensions results in six possible SOSM cells: Simple-Unitary, Simple-Pluralist, Simple-

17

Coercive, Complex-Unitary, Complex Pluralist, and Complex-Coercive.

To determine which one of the 108 articles belongs to each cell of the SOSM, each article

was classified according to the criteria of each SOSM cell after a thorough reading of the

objective and the methodology were conducted. Following are the criteria:

Simple Unitary – it applies to the articles that discuss a certain objective and hard system

approach, it is assumed that the participants share values and beliefs, and the systems can

be quantitatively modeled.

Simple Pluralist –it is similar to the characteristics of Simple Unitary, except for the fact

that its articles show different perceptions among participants although their basic

interests are compatible. A disagreement can take place. And if the participants involved

in decision-making, then compromises or agreements can be reached (compromise

approach).

Simple Coercive – it is the same as simple unitary, except for the fact that its articles

show few interests in common among the participants. Compromise is not possible, and

decisions are taken on the basis of who has the most power (coercive approach).

Complex Unitary, Complex Pluralist and Complex Coercive are basically similar with

Simple Unitary, Simple Pluralist and Simple Coercive respectively, except for the fact

that their articles discuss a large number of subsystems involved, and such systems adapt

and evolve over time as they are affected by the turbulent environments where they exist

although the participants have similar values, beliefs, and interests.

Flood and Jackson (1991) suggested that we should be careful in defining simple and

complex systems. For example, an aircraft, due to its having many parts and interrelations,

might be mistakenly considered as a complex system. The fact is that aircraft falls into the

category of a simple system. It is because aircraft technologies are operated according to well

defined laws of behavior, not evolutionary laws of behavior. Similar condition applies to

ERP, where the number of people involved as well as the number of ERP software modules

to be customized,easily assumed as a complex system. Actually, there is a limit of

customization that can be implemented in an ERP software, and consequently the user should

follow to the world class business process embedded in it. Table 5 shows the summary of

articles mapping under the SOSM framework using the above mentioned criteria, while the

18

details are presented in Table 6.

The results of articles analysis using SOSM approach indicate that most of the articles

fall into both the simple-unitary and simple-pluralist category and the rational stream due to

certain characteristics, such as common knowledge and complete information. In other

words, because it follows hard systems engineering approaches, which assume a given

objective or objectives and with hard technological systems, there is usually little

disagreement. On the other hand, failed ERP implementation, which is often caused by the

interactions,should be classified into either Complex–Pluralist or Complex–Coercive

category because in many business situations--especially those involving IT such as ERP--

the objectives are not clear cut.

Table 5. Summary of articles mapping under the SOSM framework

PARTICIPANTS

UNITARY PLURALIST COERCIVE

PROBLEMS SIMPLE 92 16 -

COMPLEX - - -

Different people in an organisation may have different objectives for the same

organisational system. Since businesses are human activity systems, there is almost always a

disagreement, involving intuition, emotion, misperceptions, and conflicts. This phenomenon

characterizes an irrational stream. Different perceptions, the business process changes in ERP

implementation, may lead to the pluralist if a solution is needed to resolve disagreements or

the coercive category if certain actors coerce others to accept the decision. Therefore, there is

a chance to study how to manage the interaction among the actors in the ERP

implementation.

5. Discussion

The result of initialclassification on ERP implementation articles confirms the saturation

level of factors‟ articles, while actor‟s articlesareless studied.The CSFs mentioned by

Holland and Light (1999), Akkermans and Helden (2002), Muscatello (2002), Finney and

19

Corbett (2007), Françoise et al. (2009), Chuen (2010) and Moohebat et al. (2011) in their

studies showed many similarities, and some articles showed the list of CFFs as the mirror of

CSFs. Although various research methods were used to produce those CSFs, the mechanisms

derivedusing CIMO logiccan explains very well the origins of them. In the future, the studies

on actors should be more emphasized than the factors on ERP implementation.

It is important to note Finney and Corbett (2007) recommendation that there was a need

to conduct more in-depth research into the concept of change management in ERP

implementation.Unfortunately, many CSF articles only mentions the importance of change

management without further explaining it, for example, when and how to conduct a proper

change management. Managing changes during ERP implementation means managing

interaction among actors involved in each stage of ERP interaction. Schniederjans and Yadav

(2013)believes that ERP implementation success can be negatively impacted by a culture

resistant to change and a lack of trustwithin the ERP community, including the vendor,

consultant and ERP implementing organization, as well as trust with the system itself.

Finney and Corbett (2007) also mentioned the need to study the stakeholders (or the

actors) in ERP implementation. Somers and Nelson (2004) have analysed who are the key

players, the so called stakeholders, and what are their roles in ERP implementation. Earlier,

Skok and Legge (2002) define the company selecting, implementing and using ERP system

as ”a social activity system which consists of a variety of stakeholders”. Further, Skok and

Legge (2002) illustrated the complexity of the relationships amongst the stakeholders and

possible conflict points in the interaction between them.

Somers and Nelson (2004) list top management, project champion, steering committee,

implementation consultants, and project team as the most important players in ERP

implementation. However, Kumar et al. (2003) argue that users were not currently listed as

key players by Somers and Nelson (2004), and it is paradoxal since the key players

representing the company that implements an ERP system are to be users after the

implementation. According to Matende and Ogao (2013), literature review conducted by

Moon (2007) mentioned that one of the most cited critical success factors in the ERP

implementation is user participation and involvement. However, this is only presented in

form of user education and training in order to fully use the implemented system.

20

Akkermans and Helden (2002) in their study stated that 2 CSFs, such asinterdepartmental

collaboration and interdepartmental communication, served asthe core of CSFs. Both

reinforced each other or usedsystem dynamics terms, and they arecalled core reinforcing loop

(Akkermans and Helden, 2002). This statement confirms that, under theSOSM framework,

most of the analyzed articles onERP implementation belong tothe Simple–Unitary and

Simple–Pluralistcategory. In the future, more and more studies should be directed to prove

whetherERP implementation belongs to Complex–Pluralist or Complex–Coercive category.

Annamalai and Ramayah (2013) cited Sternad and Bobek (2006) statement that

interdepartmental communication should cover the rationale for the ERP implementation,

details of the business process management, demonstration of applicable software modules,

briefings of change management strategies and tactics, and establishment of contact points.

Annamalai and Ramayah(2013) also stated that interdepartmental cooperation is essential for

creating an understanding, an approval of the implementation and sharing information

between the project team and communicating to the whole organization, the results and the

goals in each implementation stage.

Based on the result of CIMO analysis, the interdepartmental cooperation implicitly

includes user interaction mechanism. If the term interdepartmental cooperation is replaced

with actors interaction, no articles will appear. Further investigation to the selected articles

revealed that there was no further explanation on user interaction, which confirms that

actually there are no articles on actor interaction.

Moreover, the analyzed articles under the SOSM framework indicated that most of the

ERP implementation articles follows the rational stream or hard systems engineering

approach. This is because of the allowable customization limit of ERP application software,

that the category „little or very few user interactions‟ was made. There were no articles on

ERP implementation which fell under the Complex–Pluralist or Complex–Coercive category,

as one of the characteristics of ERP implementation.

6. Conclusions

ERP implementation is an important topic that is receiving considerable attention both

from academics and practitioners. Much of the prior literatures on ERP implementation

21

focused on the factors that contribute to successes and failures in practices. This study has

attempted to consider the actors during ERP implementation in order to understand the

practices of ERP. To accomplish this, a new classification of ERP implementation was

developed with the supporting literature that demonstrated the importance of elements of the

framework. After collecting and selecting the relevant articles, the analysis of the articles was

conducted and the results showed that there were four elements of the framework that were

able to show the important aspects of ERP implementation. The results also provided

evidence that the identification of the main actors and their roles, interactions, decisions, and

impacts to ERP implementation were overlooked by previous research. The general findings

can be categorized into five points. First, the articles on ERP implementation studied more on

critical success and failure factors but very few on critical success and failure actors. Second,

almost all of the articles used CFFs as the mirror of CSFs, which explain why there were

fewer articles on CFFs than CSFs.Third, the result of CIMO analysis on CSFs and CFFs

articles also confirmed that the mechanisms to carry out the interventions were similar with

the list of widely known CSFs of ERP implementation. Fourth, there wasno further

elaborationon CSAs and CFAs articles which mentioned user interaction as a determinant on

ERP implementation. Fifth, the result of further analysis using SOSM approach showed that

all of the articles fall within the category of simple problems/situations with unitary and

pluralist participants.

It was also found that interaction and conflicts among actors affected the success of ERP

implementation, and sometimes their decisions were made by using a coercive approach. In

other words, the real situation of ERP implementation cannot be approached only through

hard systems engineering or rational stream.Therefore, future studies are needed to explore

and explainthe interaction among actors in every stage of ERP implementationproject

(initiation/planning, development and deployment/go live) and how to manage the conflict

that may arise. It is expected that failed ERP implementation can be avoided by

understanding the typical conflicts and dilemmas resulted from interaction in each stage of

ERP implementation.

In a broader scope, new initiatives which require radical changes, such as in economic,

commercial, public policy or else, special attention should be given to actors‟ interaction

22

instead of interaction among factors (variables). As stated by Macy and Willer (2002), the

interactions among agents (actors) can generate familiar but difficult to interpret or

understand global patterns, such as the diffusion of information, emergence of norms,

coordination of conventions, or participation in collective action.

23

REFERENCES

Akkermans, H. and van Helden, K. (2002),”Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation:

A case study of interrelations between critical success factors”, European Journal of

Information Systems, 11, 35-46, doi: 10.1057/palgrave/ejis/3000418.

Allen, L.E. (2008), “Where good ERP implementations go bad: a case for continuity”, Business

Process Management Journal, 14, 327-337, doi: 10.1108/14637150810876661.

Alballaa, H. and Al-Mudimigh, A.S., (2011), “Change management strategies for effective ERP

systems”, International Journal of Computer Applications, 17, 14-19, doi: 10.5120/2194-

2785.

Ali, M. and Xie, Y., (2012), “The quest for successful implementation:A new dynamic model for

ERP system implementation innovation”, International Journal of Innovations in

Business, 1, 113-133

Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., and Zairi, M. (2003), “Enterprise resource planning: A

taxonomy of critical factors”, European Journal of Operational Research, 146, 352-364,

doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00554-4.

Al-Mashari, M. and Al-Mudimigh, A. (2003), “ERP implementation: Lessons from a case

study”, Information Technology & People, 6, 21-33, doi: 10.1108/09593840310463005.

Al-Mudimigh, A., Zairi, M., and Al-Mashari, M. (2001), “ERP software implementation: an

integrative framework”, European Journal of Information Systems, 10, 216-226, doi:

10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000406.

Aloini, D., Dulmin, R. and Minnino, V. (2007), “Risk management in ERP project introduction:

Review of the literature”, Information and Management, 44, 547-567, doi:

10.1016/j.im.2007.05.004.

Annamalai, C. and Ramayah, T., (2013), "Does the organizational culture act as a moderator in

Indian ERP projects: An empirical study", Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management, 24, 555-587, doi: 10.1108/17410381311327404.

Anthony, R. N.; Dearden, J. and Vancil, R. F., (1972), “Management Control Systems: Text,

Cases and Readings”, R.D. Irwin.

Boynton, A.C. and Zmud, R.W., (1984), “An Assessment of Critical Success Factors”, Sloan

Management Review (pre-1986), 25, 17-27.

24

Capaldo, G. and Rippa, P. (2009), “A planned oriented approach for ERP implementation

strategy selection”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22, 642-659, doi:

10.1108/17410390910999567.

Caralli, R.A., (2004), "The Critical Success Factor Method: Establishing a Foundation for

Enterprise Security Management", Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute.

Carton, F., Adam, F. and Sammon, D., (2008), “Project management_a case study of a

successful ERP”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1, pp. 106-

124, doi: 10.1108/17538370810846441.

Chan, E.W.L., Walker, D.H.T. and Mills, A. (2009), “Using a KM framework to evaluate an

ERP system implementation”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, 93-109, doi:

10.1108/13673270910942727.

Chuang, M.L. and Shaw, W.H. (2008), “An empirical study of enterprise resource management

systems implementation: From ERP to RFID”, Business Process Management

Journal, 14, 675-693, doi: 10.1108/14637150810903057.

Chuen, I.P., (2010), “Critical success factors in enterprise resource planning system

implementation_an analysis”, Doctoral Dissertation, Bulacan State University,

Philippines.

Daniel, D. R. (1961) “Management Information Crisis,” Harvard Business Review, 39, 111-121,

www.hbr.org

Dawson, J. and Owens, J., (2008), “Critical success factors in the chartering phase”,

International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 4, 9-24, doi:

10.4018/jeis.2008070102

Denyer, D. andTranfield, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D.A. and

Bryman, A. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, SAGE

publications, London, 671-689.

Denyer, D.,Tranfield, D. and van Aken, J.E. (2008), “Developing design propositions through

research synthesis”, Organization Studies, 29, 393-413, doi:

10.1177/0170840607088020.

25

Dey, P.K.,Clegg, B.T. and Bennett, D.J. (2010), “Managing enterprise resource planning

projects”, Business Process Management Journal, 16, 282-296, doi:

10.1108/14637151011035606.

Dezdar, S. and Ainin, S. (2011), “Examining ERP implementation success from a project

environment perspective”, Business Process Management Journal, 17, 919-939, doi:

10.1108/14637151111182693.

Dezdar, S. and Ainin, S. (2009), “Successful enterprise resource planning implementation:

taxonomy of critical factors”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109, 1037-1052,

doi: 10.1108/02635570910991283.

Doom, C., Milis, K., Poelmans, S. and Bloemen, E. (2010), “Critical success factors for ERP

implementations in Belgian SMEs”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23,

378-406, doi: 10.1108/17410391011036120.

Ehie, I.C. and Madsen, M., (2005), “Identifying critical issues in enterprise resource planning

(ERP) implementation”, Computers in Industry, 56, 545–557, doi:

10.1016/j.compind.2005.02.006.

Elbanna, A.R. (2007), “Implementing an integrated system in a socially dis-integrated enterprise:

A critical view of ERP enabled integration”, Information Technology & People, 20, 121-

139, doi: 10.1108/09593840710758040.

El Sawah, S., Tharwat, A.A.E.F. and Rasmy, M.H. (2008), “A quantitative model to predict the

Egyptian ERP implementation success index”, Business Process Management

Journal, 14, 288-306, doi: 10.1108/14637150810876643.

Esteves, J. (2004), “Definition and Analysis of CSF for ERP Implementation Projects”, Doctoral

Dissertation, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain,

http://http://www.jesteves.com/Tesis_phd_jesteves.pdf

Esteves, J. (2009), “A benefits realization road-map framework for ERP usage in small and

medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22, 25-35,

doi: 10.1108/17410390910922804.

Federici, T. (2009), “Factors influencing ERP outcomes in SMEs: a post-introduction

assessment”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22, 81-98, doi:

10.1108/17410390910922840.

26

Finney, S. (2011), “Stakeholder perspective on internal marketing communication: An ERP

implementation case study”, Business Process Management Journal, 17, 311-331, doi:

10.1108/14637151111122365.

Finney, S. and Corbett, M. (2007), “ERP implementation: a compilation and analysis of critical

success factors”, Business Process Management Journal, 13, 329-347, doi:

10.1108/14637150710752272.

Fitz-Gerald, L. and Carroll, J. (2003), “The role of governance in ERP system implementation”,

in: Proceedings of the 14th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Perth,

Western Australia, 26-28 November, 2003.

Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991), “Creative Problem Solving – Total System

Intervention”, Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Fortune, J. and Peters, G. (2005), “Information Systems - Achieving Success by Avoiding

Failure”, Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Françoise, O., Bourgault, M. and Pellerin, R. (2009), “ERP implementation through critical

success factors' management”, Business Process Management Journal, 15, 371-394, doi:

10.1108/14637150910960620.

Fuß, C., Gmeiner, R., Schiereck, D. and Strahringer, S., (2007), “ERP usage in banking: An

exploratory survey of the world's largest banks”, Information Systems Management, 24,

155-171, doi: 10.1080/10580530701221056.

Gargeya, V.B. and Brady, C. (2005), “Success and failure factors of adopting SAP in ERP

system implementation”, Business Process Management Journal, 11, 501-516, doi:

10.1108/14637150510619858.

Gosain, S., Lee, Z. and Kim, Y. (2005), “The management of cross-functional inter-

dependencies in ERP implementations: emergent coordination patterns”, European

Journal of Information Systems, 14, 371-387, doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000549.

Häkkinen, L. and Hilmola, O.P. (2008), “Life after ERP implementation: Long-term

development of user perceptions of system success in an after-sales environment”,

Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 21, 285-310, doi:

10.1108/17410390810866646.

27

Hasan, M., Trinh, N., Chan, F.T.S., Chan, H.K. and Chung, S.H., (2011),

“Implementation of ERP of the Australian manufacturing companies”, Industrial

Management & Data Systems, 111, 132-145, doi: 10.1108/02635571111099767.

Hawari, A. and Heeks, R. (2010), “Explaining ERP failure in a developing country: a Jordanian

case study”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23, 135-160, doi:

10.1108/17410391011019741.

Helo, P., Anussornnitisarn, P. and Phusavat, K., (2008), “Expectation and reality in ERP

implementation: consultant and solution provider perspective”, Industrial Management &

Data Systems, 108, 1045-1069, doi:10.1108/02635570810904604.

Ho, C.F., Wu, W.H., and Tai, Y. M. (2004), “Strategies for the adaptation of ERP systems”,

Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104, 234-251,

doi: 10.1108/02635570410525780.

Hofer, C.W. and Schendel, D.E., (1978), “Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts”, West

Publishing Company, St.Paul, Minnesota.

Holland, C.P. and Light, B. (1999), “A critical success factors model for ERP implementation”,

IEEE Software, 16, 30-36, doi: 10.1109/52.765784.

Hsu, L.L. and Minder, C. (2004), “Impacts of ERP systems on the integrated-interaction

performance of manufacturing and marketing”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,

104, 42-55, doi: 10.1108/02635570410514089.

Huang, Z., (2010), “A compilation research of erp implementation critical success factors”,

Issues in Information Systems, 11, 507-512, http://iacis.org/iis/2010/507-

512_LV2010_1491.pdf.

Ifinedo, P. (2008), “Impacts of business vision, top management support, and external expertise

on ERP success”, Business Process Management Journal, 14, 551-568, doi:

10.1108/14637150810888073.

Ifinedo, P. and Nahar, N., (2009), “Interactions between contingency, organizational IT factors,

and ERP success”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109, 118-137,

doi:10.1108/02635570910926627.

Jackson, M. (2003), “Systems Thinking – Creative Holism for Managers”, Wiley, Chichester,

UK.

28

Jang, W., Lin, C. and Pan, M. (2009), “Business strategies and the adoption of ERP: Evidence

from Taiwan's communications industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management, 20, 1084-1098, doi: 10.1108/17410380910997227.

Jeng, D.J.F. and Dunk,N. (2013), "Knowledge Management Enablers and Knowledge Creation

in ERP System Success", International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 11,

49-59, http://ijebm.ie.nthu.edu.tw/ijebm_web/IJEBM_static/Paper-V11_N1/A06.pdf

Kale P.T., Banwait, S.S. and Laroiya, S.C. (2010), “Performance evaluation of ERP

implementation in Indian SMEs”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management, 21, 758-780, doi:10.1108/17410381011064030.

Kemp, M.J. and Low, G.C., (2008), “ERP innovation implementation model incorporating

change management”, Business Process Management Journal, 14, 228-242,

doi:10.1108/14637150810864952.

Klaus, T. and Blanton, J.E. (2010), “User resistance determinants and the psychological contract

in enterprise system implementations”, European Journal of Information Systems, 19,

625-636, doi: 10.1057/ejis.2010.39.

Koh, S.C.L., Simpson. M., Padmore, J., Dimitriadis, N. and Misopoulos, F. (2006), “An

exploratory study of enterprise resource planning adoption in Greek companies”,


doi:10.1108/02635570610688913.

Kraemmergaard, P. and Rose, J., (2002), “Managerial competences for ERP journeys”,

Information Systems Frontiers, 4, 199-211, doi:10.1023/A:1016054904008.

Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B. and Kumar,U., (2003),”An investigation of critical management

issues in ERP implementation: empirical evidence from Canadian organizations”,

Technovation, 23, 793–807, doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00015-9.

Lee, D.H., Lee, S.M., Olson, D.L. and Chung, S.H. (2010), “The effect of organizational support

on ERP implementation”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110, 269-283,

doi:10.1108/02635571011020340.

Li, Y., (2011), “ERP adoption in Chinese small enterprise: an exploratory case study”, Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management, 22, 489-505,

doi:10.1108/17410381111143130.

29

Lim, E.T.K., Pan, S.L. and Tan, C.W. (2005), “Managing user acceptance towards enterprise

resource planning (ERP) systems - understanding the dissonance between user

expectations and managerial policies”, European Journal of Information Systems, 14,

135-149, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000531.

Lin, F. and Rohm, C.E.T. (2009), “Managers' and end-users' concerns on innovation

implementation: A case of an ERP implementation in China”, Business Process

Management Journal, 15, 527-547, doi:10.1108/14637150910975525.

Longinidis, P. and Gotzamani, K. (2009), “ERP user satisfaction issues: insights from a Greek

industrial giant”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109, 628-645,

doi:10.1108/02635570910957623.

Lowe, A. and Locke, J. (2008), “Enterprise resource planning and the post bureaucratic

organization: „Formalization‟ as trust in the system versus „solidarity‟ as trust in

individuals”, Information Technology & People, 21, 375-400,

doi: 10.1108/09593840810919680.

Lyytinen, K., Newman, M. and Al-Muharfi, A.A. (2009), “Institutionalizing enterprise resource

planning in the Saudi steel industry: A punctuated socio-technical analysis”, Journal of

Information Technology, 24, 286-304, doi:10.1057/jit.2009.14.

Macy, Michael W and Willer, Robert, (2002), “From factors to actors: Computational sociology

and agent-based modeling”, Annual Review of Sociology; 28, 143-166,

doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141117

Maditinos, D., Chatzoudes, D. and Tsairidis, C., (2012), “Factors affecting ERP system

implementation effectiveness”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 25, 60-

78, doi:10.1108/17410391211192161.

Maguire, S., Ojiako, U. and Said, A. (2010), “ERP implementation in Omantel: a case study”,

Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110, 78-92, doi:10.1108/02635571011008416.

Maheshwari, B., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2010), “Delineating the ERP institutionalization

process: go-live to effectiveness”, Business Process Management Journal, 16, 744-771,

doi:10.1108/14637151011065982.

30

Mandal, P. and Gunasekaran, A., (2003), “Issues in implementing ERP: A case study”,

European Journal of Operational Research,146, 274–283, doi:10.1016/S0377-

2217(02)00549-0.

Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C. (2000), “The enterprise systems experience-from adoption to

success” in Zmud, R.W. (Editor), Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting

the Future Through the Past, 173-207, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources.

Matende, S.and Ogao, P., (2013), “Enterprise resource planning (ERP) system implementation:

A case for user participation”, Procedia Technology, 9, 518–526,

doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.058.

Mehrjerdi, Y.Z. (2010), “Enterprise resource planning: risk and benefit analysis”, Business

Strategy Series, 11, 308-324, doi:10.1108/17515631011080722.

Meissonier, R. and Houzé, E. (2010), “Toward an 'IT Conflict-Resistance Theory': action

research during IT pre-implementation”, European Journal of Information Systems, 19,

540-561, doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.35.

Metrejean, E. and Stocks, M.H. (2011), “The role of consultants in the implementation of

enterprise resource planning systems”, Academy of Information and Management

Sciences Journal, 14, 1-24, http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-256863831/the-

role-of-consultants-in-the-implementation-of-enterprise#/

Moohebat, M.R, Asemi, A. and Jazi, M.D., (2010), “A comparative study of critical success

factors in implementation of ERP in developed and developing countries”, International

Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology, 2, 99-110,

doi:10.4156/ijact.vol2.issue5.11.

Moohebat, M.R., Jazi, M.D. and Asemi, A. (2011), “Evaluation of the ERP implementation at

Esfahan steel company based on five critical success factors: a case study”, International

Journal of Business and Management, 6, 236-250, doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n5p236.

Momoh, A., Roy, R., and Shehab, E. (2010), “Challenges in enterprise resource planning

implementation: state-of-the-art”, Business Process Management Journal, 16, 537-565,

doi:10.1108/14637151011065919.

31

Moon, Y.B. (2007), “Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP): a review of the literature”,

International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development,4, 235–264, doi:

10.1504/IJMED.2007.012679.

Muscatello,J.R., and Chen, I.J., (2008), “ERP implementation: Theory and practice”,

International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 4, 63-77, doi:

10.4018/jeis.2008010105.

Muscatello, J.R., Small, M.H. and Chen, I.J. (2003), “Implementing enterprise resource planning

(ERP) systems in small and midsize manufacturing firms”, International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, 23, 850-871, doi: 10.1108/01443570310486329.

Muscatello, J.R. (2002), “An exploratory study of the implementation of Enterprise Resource

Planning”, Doctoral Dissertation, Cleveland State University,

USA,http://search.proquest.com/docview/275825053/896E97CD3D6B4CD5PQ/

1?accountid=31562

Nah, F.F.H. and Delgado, S., (2006), “Critical success factors for enterprise resource planning

implementation and upgrade”, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46, 99-

113, http://cba.unl.edu/research/articles/549/download.pdf

Neuert, J. and van der Vorst, C., (2014), “Success Factors for the Evaluation of An ERP System

Investment Decision in SME's", The Business Review, 22, 141-151, www.jaabc.com

Ngai, E.W.T., Law, C.C.H. and Wat, F.K.T., (2008), “Examining the critical success factors in

the adoption of ERP”, Computers in Industry, 59, pp. 548–564,

doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.12.001.

Norton, A.L., Coulson-Thomas, Y.M., Coulson-Thomas, C.J. and Ashurst, C., (2013), “Ensuring

benefits realisation from ERP II: The CSF phasing model”, Journal of Enterprise

Information Management,26, 218-234, doi:10.1108/17410391311325207.

Noudoostbeni, A., Ismail, N.A., Jenatabadi, H.S. and Yasin, N.M. (2010), “An effective end-user

knowledge concern training method in Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) based

on Critical Factors (CFs) in Malaysian SMEs”, International Journal of Business and

Management, 5, 63-76, doi:10.5539/ijbm.v5n7p63.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01663615

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01663615/59/6

32

Okrent, M.D. and Vokurka, R.J. (2004), “Process mapping in successful ERP implementations”,


doi: 10.1108/02635570410561618

Palanisamy, R.,Verville, J., Bernadas, C. and Taskin, N., (2010), “An empirical study on the

influences on the acquisition of enterprise software decisions: A practitioner's

perspective”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 23, 610-639,

doi:10.1108/17410391011083065.

Pan, K., Nunes, M.B. and Peng, G.C. (2011), “Risks affecting ERP post-implementation:

Insights from a large Chinese manufacturing group”, Journal of Manufacturing

Technology Management, 22, 107-130, doi:10.1108/17410381111099833.

Peng, G.C. and Nunes, M.B. (2009), “Identification and assessment of risks associated with

Enterprise Resource Planning post-implementation in China”, Journal of Enterprise

Information Management, 22, 587-614, doi:10.1108/17410390910993554.

Peng, G.C. and Nunes, M.B. (2009), “Surfacing ERP exploitation risks through a risk ontology”,


doi:10.1108/02635570910982283.

Poba-Nzaou, P., Raymond, L. and Fabi, B. (2008), “Adoption and risk of ERP systems in

manufacturing SMEs: a positivist case study”, Business Process Management

Journal, 14, 530-550, doi:10.1108/14637150810888064.

Rockart, J.F. (1979), “Chief executives define their own data needs”, Harvard Business Review,

Vol. 57 No. 2, 81-92.

Rockart, J.F. and Bullen, V.C., (1981), "A Primer on Critical Success factors", Center for

Information Systems Research no. 69, Sloan School of Management Working Paper

no.1220.

Ross, J.W. and Vitale, M.R. (2000), "The ERP Revolution: Surviving vs. Thriving", Information

Systems Frontiers, 2, 233-241, doi: 10.1023/A:1026500224101.

Saini, S., Nigam, S. and Misra, S.C., (2013), “Identifying success factors for implementation of

ERP at Indian SMEs and large organizations and multinational organizations”, Journal of

Modelling in Management, 8, 103-122, doi:10.1108/17465661311312003.

33

Saatçioglu, Ö.Y. (2009), “What determines user satisfaction in ERP projects: benefits, barriers or

risks?”,Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22, 690-708,

doi:10.1108/17410390910999585.

Salmeron, J.L. and Lopez, C. (2012), “Forecasting risk impact on ERP maintenance with

augmented fuzzy cognitive maps”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 38, 439-

452, doi: 10.1109/TSE.2011.8.

Sammon, D. and Adam, F. (2005), “Towards a model of organisational prerequisites for

enterprise-wide systems integration: Examining ERP and data warehousing”, Journal of

Enterprise Information Management,18, 458-470, doi:10.1108/17410390510609608.

Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G., (1989), "An Instrument for Measuring the

Critical Factors of Quality Management", Decision Sciences, 20, 810-829,

doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1989.tb01421.x.

Schniederjans, D. and Yadav, S., (2013), “Successful ERP implementation an integrative

model“, Business Process Management Journal, 19, 364-398,

doi:10.1108/14637151311308358.

Shah, S.I.H, Bokhari, R.H., Hassan, S., Shah, M.H. and Shah, M.A. (2011), "Socio-Technical

Factors Affecting ERP Implementation Success in Pakistan: an Empirical Study",

Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5, 742-749,

http://ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2011/742-749.pdf

Shaul, L. and Tauber, D. (2012), “CSFs along ERP life-cycle in SMEs: a field study”, Industrial

Management & Data Systems, 112, 360-384, doi:10.1108/02635571211210031.

Shirouyehzad, H., Dabestani, R. and Badakhshian, M. (2011), “The FMEA Approach to

Identification of Critical Failure Factors in ERP Implementation”, International Business

Research, 4, 254-263, doi:10.5539/ibr.v4n3p254

Silveira, G.J.C., Snider, B.and Balakrishnan, J., (2013), “Compensation-based incentives, ERP

and delivery performance: Analysis from production and improvement perspectives”,

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33, 415-441,

doi:10.1108/01443571311307307.

34

Skok, W. and Legge, M. (2002) “Evaluating enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems using

aninterpretive approach”, Knowledge and Process Management, 9, 72-82,

doi: 10.1002/kpm.138.

Snider, B., da Silveira, G.J. and Balakhrisnan, J. (2009), “ERP implementation at SMEs: analysis

of five Canadian cases”, International Journal of Operations & Production

Management, 29, 4-29, doi:10.1108/01443570910925343.

Soja, P. (2008), “Examining the conditions of ERP implementations: lessons learnt from

adopters”, Business Process Management Journal, 14, 105-123,

doi:10.1108/14637150810849445.

Somers, T.M. and Nelson, K.G. (2004), “A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP

project life cycle”, Information & Management, 41, 257–278, doi:10.1016/S0378-

7206(03)00023-5.

Sternad, S. and Bobek, S., (2006), “Factors which have fatal influence on ERP implementation

on Slovenian organizations”, Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences,30,

279-293, doi:http://jios.foi.hr/index.php/jios/article/view/23.

Subramoniam, S.,Tounsi, M. and Krishnankutty, K.V. (2009), “The role of BPR in the

implementation of ERP systems”, Business Process Management Journal, 15, 653-668,

doi:10.1108/14637150910987892.

Tsai, W.H., Hwang, E.T.Y., Chang, J.C. and Lin, S.J. (2011), “The relationship between team

risk factors and IT governance under ERP environment”, International Journal of

Business and Management, 6, 21-26, doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v6n11p21.

Umble, E.J., Haft, R.R. and Umble, M.M., (2003), “Enterprise resource planning:

Implementation procedures and critical success factors”, European Journal of

Operational Research, 146, 241–257, doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00547-7.

Upadhyay, P., Basu, R., Adhikary, R. and Dan, P.K., (2010), “A comparative study of issues

affecting ERP implementation in large scale and small medium scale enterprises in India:

A Pareto approach”,International Journal of Computer Applications,8, 23-28,

doi:10.5120/1192-1670.

35

Upadhyay, P., Jahanyan, S. and Dan, P.K. (2011), “Factors influencing ERP implementation in

Indian manufacturing organisations: A study of micro, small and medium-scale

enterprises”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 24, 130-145,

doi:10.1108/17410391111106275.

Upadhyay, P. and Dan, P.K. (2009), “ERP in Indian SME's: A post implementation study of the

underlying critical success factors”, International Journal of Management Innovation

Systems, 1(2), 1-10,

http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/ijmis/article/view/162.

Velcu, O. (2007), “Exploring the effects of ERP systems on organizational performance:

Evidence from Finnish companies”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107, 1316-

1334, doi: 10.1108/02635570710833983.

Venugopal, C. and Rao, K.S., (2011), “Learning from a failed ERP implementation_a case study

research”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4, 596-615,

doi:10.1108/17538371111164038.

Warne, L. (1997), “Conflict as a Factor in Information Systems Failure”, The 8th Australasian

Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 97), School of Information Systems,

University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 29th-2nd October.

Wei, H.L., Wang, E.T. and Ju, P.H. (2005), “Understanding misalignment and cascading change

of ERP implementation: a stage view of process analysis”, European Journal of

Information Systems, 14, 324-334, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000547.

Wenrich, K.I. and Ahmad, N. (2009), “Lessons learned during a decade of ERP experience: A

case study”, International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 5, 55-73,

doi:10.1.1.116.5888

Wickramasinghe, V. and Gunawardena, V. (2010), “Critical elements that discriminate between

successful and unsuccessful ERP implementations in Sri Lanka”, Journal of Enterprise

Information Management, 23, 466-485, doi:10.1108/17410391011061771.

Willis, R. and Chiasson, M. (2007), “Do the ends justify the means?: A Gramscian critique of the

processes of consent during an ERP implementation”, Information Technology & People,

20, 212-234, doi: 10.1108/09593840710822840.

36

Wong, A., Scarbrough, H., Chau, P.Y.K. and Davison, R. (2005), “Critical Failure Factors in

ERP Implementation”, PACIS 2005 Proceeding, www.pacis-net.org/file/2005/395.pdf

Woo, H.S. (2007), “Critical success factors for implementing ERP: the case of a

Chineseelectronics manufacturer”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management, 18, 431-442, doi:10.1108/17410380710743798.

Xue, Y., Liang, H., Boulton, W.R. and Snyder, C.A., (2005), “ERP implementation failures in

China: Case studies with implications for ERP vendors”, International Journal

Production Economics, 97, 279–295, doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.07.008.

Yeh, J.Y. and OuYang, Y.C. (2010), “How an organization changes in ERP implementation: a

Taiwan semiconductor case study”, Business Process Management Journal, 16, 209-225,

doi:10.1108/14637151011035561.

Yeo, K.T., (2002), “Critical failure factors in information system projects”, International Journal

of Project Management, 20, 241–246, doi: 10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00075-8

Yu, C.S. (2005), “Causes influencing the effectiveness of the post-implementation ERP system”,


doi: 10.1108/02635570510575225.

Žabjek, D., Kovacic, A. and Štemberger, M.I. (2009), “The influence of business process

management and some other CSFs on successful ERP implementation”, Business Process

Management Journal, 15, 588-608, doi: 10.1108/14637150910975552

Zhang, Z., Lee, M. K.O., Huang, P., Zhang, L., and Huang, X. (2005), “A framework of ERP

systems implementation success in China: An empirical study”, International Journal

Production Economics,98, 56–80, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.09.004.

37

Table 3. The results of the CIMO logic for CSF

CSF

Akker

man

s et

al.

2002

Alb

alla

a et

al

2011

Ali

et

al 2

012

Al

Mas

har

i et

al.

2003

a

Al-

Mudim

igh e

t al

. 2001

Annam

alai

2013

Cap

aldo e

t al

. 2009

Car

ton e

t al

2008

Chan

et

al.

2009

Chuan

g e

t al

. 2008

Daw

son e

t al

2008

Dey

et

al.

2010

Dez

dar

et

al.

2009

Dez

dar

et

al.

2011

Doom

et

al.

2010

Ehie

et

al 2

005

El

Saw

ah e

t al

. 2008

Elb

ana

2007

Est

eves

2009

Fed

eric

i 2009

Fin

ney

2007

Fin

ney

2011

Fra

nco

ise

2009

Fuß e

t al

. 2007

Gar

gey

a et

al.

2005

Gosa

in e

t al

. 2005

Hak

kin

en e

t al

. 2008

Has

an e

t al.

2011

Ho e

t al

. 2004

CONTEXT

Globalization V

Structural changes V V

Uncertainty and risk V V V

INTERVENTIONS


Top management support V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Commitment to change V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Redesign business process V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Interdepartmental cooperation V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

IT related

Adequate infrastucture V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Qualified consultant V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Partner relationship V V V V V V V V V V V

Project related

Minimal customization V V V V V V V V V V V V

Realistic and adequate budget V V V V V V V

Standardised specifications V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Balanced team & best people V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

OUTCOMES

Project completion time V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Project expenditure V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

User satisfaction V V V V V V V V V V

Impact to business performance V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

38

Table 3. The results of the CIMO logic for CSF (continued)

CSF

Holl

and e

t al

. 1999

Hsu

et

al.

2004

Huan

g e

t al

2010

Ifin

edo 2

008

Ifin

edo e

t al

. 2009

Jeng e

t al

. 2013

Jian

g e

t al

. 2009

Kal

e et

al.

2010

Koh e

t al

. 2006

Kum

ar e

t al

2003

Lee

et

al.

2010

Li

2012

Lin

et

al.

2009

Longin

idis

et

al.

2009

Kem

p e

t al

. 2008

Mad

itin

os

et a

l 2012

Mag

uir

e et

at

2009

Man

dal

et

al 2

003

Meh

rjer

di

201

0

Mooheb

at e

t al

. 2010

Mooheb

at e

t al

. 2011

Musc

atel

lo e

t al

. 2008

Musc

atel

lo e

t al

. 2003

Nah

et

al 2

00

6

Neu

ert

2014

Ngai

et

al 2

008

Nort

on e

t al

. 2013

Noudoost

ben

i et

al.

2010

Okre

nt

et a

l. 2

004

CONTEXT

Globalization V

Structural changes V

Uncertainty and risk V V V V V

INTERVENTIONS


Top management support V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Commitment to change V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Redesign business process V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Interdepartmental cooperation V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

IT related

Adequate infrastucture V V V V V V V V V V

Qualified consultant V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Partner relationship V V V V V V V V V V V

Project related

Minimal customization V V V V V V V V V V V

Realistic and adequate budget V V V V V V

Standardised specifications V V V V V V V V V V V

Balanced team & best people V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

OUTCOMES

Project completion time V V V V V

Project expenditure V V V V

User satisfaction V V V V

Impact to business performance V V V V V V V V V V

39

Table 3. The results of the CIMO logic for CSF (continued)

CSF

Sai

ni

et a

l 2013

Saa

tcio

glu

200

9

Sch

nie

der

jans

et a

l 2013

Shau

l et

al.

2012

Sil

vei

ra e

t al

. 2013

Skok e

t al

2002

Snid

er e

t al

. 2009

Subra

mo

nia

m e

t al

. 2009

Tsa

i et

al.

2011

Um

ble

et

al 2

003

Upad

hyay

2010

Upad

hyay

2009

Upad

hyay

et

al.

2011

Vel

cu 2

007

Wen

rich

et

al 2

009

Wic

kra

mas

inghe

et a

l. 2

010

Wil

lis

et a

l. 2

007

Woo 2

007

Yeh

et

al.

2010

Yu 2

005

Zab

jek e

t al

. 2009

Zhan

g e

t al

2005

CONTEXT

Globalization V V

Structural changes V

Uncertainty and risk V V V V

INTERVENTIONS


Top management support V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Commitment to change V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Redesign business process V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Interdepartmental cooperation V V V V V V V V V V

IT related

Adequate infrastucture V V V V V V V V V V V V

Qualified consultant V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Partner relationship V V V V V V V V V

Project related

Minimal customization V V V V V V V V V

Realistic and adequate budget V V V V V

Standardised specifications V V V V V V V V V V V

Balanced team & best people V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

OUTCOMES

Project completion time V V V

Project expenditure V V

User satisfaction V V V V V

Impact to business performance V V V V V V

40

Table 4. The results of the CIMO logic for CFF, CSA, and CFA

CFF CSA CFA

All

en 2

008

Al

Mas

har

i et

al.

2003

b

Haw

ari

et a

l. 2

009

Low

e et

al.

2008

Lyyti

nen

et

al.

2009

Mah

eshw

ari

et a

l. 2

010

Mom

oh e

t al

. 2010

Pan

et

al.

2011

Pen

g e

t al

. 2009

a

Pen

g e

t al

. 2009

b

Poba-

Nza

ou e

t al

. 2008

Sal

mer

on e

t al

. 2012

Sam

mon e

t al

. 2005

Shi

Min

g e

t al

. 2004

Shir

ouyeh

zad e

t al

. 2011

Ste

rnad

et

al 2

006

Ven

ugopal

et

al 2

011

Wei

et

al.

2005

Xue

et a

l 005

Hel

o e

t al

. 2008

Lim

et

al.

2005

Mat

ende

et a

l 2013

Met

reja

n e

t al

. 2011

Pal

anis

amy e

t al

. 2010

Som

ers

et a

l 2004

Soja

2008

Kla

us

et a

l. 2

010

Mei

ssonie

r et

al.

2010

CONTEXT

Globalization V V V

Structural changes V V V V V V V

Uncertainty and risk V V V V V V V V V V V V V

INTERVENTIONS


Top management support V V V V V V V V V V V V

Commitment to change V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Redesign business process V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Interdepartmental cooperation V V V V V V V

IT related

Adequate infrastucture V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Qualified consultant V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Partner relationship V V V V V V V V V V

Project related

Minimal customization V V V V V V V V V V

Realistic and adequate budget V V V V V V V V V V V V

Standardised specifications V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

Balanced team & best people V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

OUTCOMES

Project completion time V V

Project expenditure V

User satisfaction V V V V V V V V V V

Impact to business performance V V V V V V V V V V V V

41

Tabel 6. The results of the SOSM framework

No. Author Simple Complex Unitary Pluralist Coercive

1 Akkermans et al. 2002 V V

2 Alballaa et al 2011 V V

3 Allen 2008 V V

4 Ali et al 2012 V V

5 Al Mashariet al. 2003a V V

6 Al Mashari et al. 2003b V V

7 Al-Mudimigh et al. 2001 V V

8 Annamalai 2013 V V

9 Capaldo et al. 2009 V V

10 Carton et al 2008 V V

11 Chan et al. 2009 V V

12 Chuang et al. 2008 V V

13 Dawson et al 2008 V V

14 Dey et al. 2010 V V

15 Dezdar et al. 2009 V V

16 Dezdar et al. 2011 V V

17 Doom et al. 2010 V V

18 Ehie et al 2005

19 El Sawah et al. 2008 V V

20 Elbana 2007 V V

21 Esteves 2009 V V

22 Federici 2009 V V

23 Finney 2007 V V

24 Finney 2011 V V

25 Francoise 2009 V V

26 Fuß et al. 2007 V V

27 Gargeya et al. 2005 V V

28 Gosain et al. 2005 V V

29 Hakkinen et al. 2008 V V

30 Hasan et al. 2011 V V

31 Hawari et al. 2009 V V

32 Helo et al. 2008 V V

33 Ho et al. 2004 V V

34 Holland et al. 1999 V V

35 Hsu et al. 2004 V V

36 Huang et al 2010 V V

37 Ifinedo 2008 V V

38 Ifinedo et al. 2009 V V

39 Jeng et al. 2013 V V

40 Jiang et al. 2009 V V

42

Tabel 6. The results of the SOSM framework (continued)


41 Kale et al. 2010 V V

42 Kemp et al. 2008 V V

43 Klaus et al. 2010 V V

44 Koh et al. 2006 V V

45 Kumar et al 2003 V V

46 Lee et al. 2010 V V

47 Li 2012 V V

48 Lim et al. 2005 V V

49 Lin et al. 2009 V V

50 Longinidis et al. 2009 V V

51 Lowe et al. 2008 V V

52 Lyytinen et al. 2009 V V

53 Maditinos et al 2012 V V

54 Maguire et at 2009 V V

55 Maheshwari et al. 2010 V V

56 Mandal et al 2003 V V

57 Mehrjerdi 2010 V V

58 Meissonier et al. 2010 V V

59 Matende et al 2013 V V

60 Metrejan et al. 2011 V V

61 Moohebat et al. 2010 V V

62 Moohebat et al. 2011 V V

63 Momoh et al. 2010 V V

64 Muscatello et al. 2008

65 Muscatello et al. 2003 V V

66 Nah et al 2006 V V

67 Neuert 2014 V V

68 Ngai et al 2008 V V

69 Norton et al. 2013 V V

70 Noudoostbeni et al. 2010 V V

71 Okrent et al. 2004 V V

72 Palanisamy et al. 2010 V V

73 Pan et al. 2011 V V

74 Peng et al. 2009a V V

75 Peng et al. 2009b V V

76 Poba-Nzaou et al. 2008 V V

77 Saini et al 2013 V V

78 Saatcioglu 2009 V V

79 Salmeron et al. 2012 V V

80 Sammon et al. 2005 V V

43

Tabel 6. The results of the SOSM framework (continued)


81 Schniederjans et al 2013 V V

82 Shaul et al. 2012 V V

83 Shi Ming et al. 2004 V V

84 Shirouyehzad et al. 2011 V V

85 Silveira et al. 2013 V V

86 Skok et al 2002 V V

87 Somers et al 2004 V V

88 Snider et al. 2009 V V

89 Soja 2008 V V

90 Sternad et al 2006 V V

91 Subramoniam et al. 2009 V V

92 Tsai et al. 2011 V V

93 Umble et al 2003 V V

94 Upadhyay 2010 V V

95 Upadhyay 2009 V V

96 Upadhyay et al. 2011 V V

97 Velcu 2007 V V

98 Venugopal et al 2011 V V

99 Wei et al. 2005 V V

100 Wenrich et al 2009 V V

101 Wickramasinghe et al. 2010 V V

102 Willis et al. 2007 V V

103 Woo 2007 V V

104 Xue et al 005 V V

105 Yeh et al. 2010 V V

106 Yu 2005 V V

107 Zabjek et al. 2009 V V

108 Zhang et al. 2005 V V

Actors’ interaction in the ERP implementation literature

Documents

Transcript of Actors’ interaction in the ERP implementation literature